State Lackeys: When It Comes to Raw Milk, Ag Agencies Do the FDA’s Bidding; Pay Me Now Or...
Monday, June 11, 2007 at 10:39PM 
I’ve always thought of state agencies—be they auto registries, tax collectors, or agriculture departments—as being fairly independent of each other, and the federal government. The idea that they might coordinate policy on a nearly national basis seems foreign.
Traditionally in this country, the states resist intrusion of Washington’s authority into their locally-oriented turf, which has long been part of the beauty of our federal system (though at times a problem, particularly in the area of civil rights).
But we may be seeing widespread coordination to stamp out the scourge of raw milk. Ohio agriculture officials previewed the trend for me last November when the head of the state’s dairy division declared, "When I go to (national) meetings of my cohorts, (raw milk) is the No. 1 issue that comes up.”
The federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) certainly seems to be egging the locals on, as Don Neeper suggests in his comment on yesterday’s posting. On March 1, the FDA not only issued a warning with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) about “the dangers” of raw milk, but also placed a new 66-slide anti-raw-milk Powerpoint presentation on its web site.
And wouldn’t you know, slide #5 says that the “FDA has been providing information and assistance to states dealing with raw milk issues, including to legislative committees.” The FDA’s campaign isn’t confined to simply trying to scare people away from raw milk. It says (on slide #48) that a warning letter to a Washington state farm “establishes FDA’s position that cow sharing is another form of introduction of raw milk into interstate commerce.” So those cow share proposals in Ohio and elsewhere may be in trouble, even if state legislatures pass them.
Clearly, major states are taking the FDA’s message to heart. Pete Kennedy, a lawyer with the Weston A. Price Foundation, sees the anti-raw-milk campaign in full force. “There have been a number of farms in Pennsylvania, New York, and South Carolina whose milk has tested positive for pathogens lately, and from what I understand, there hasn’t been a single reported illness in any of those states.”
No illness? Why let a detail like that get in the way? In its slide show (#45), the FDA goes into amazing detail recounting a situation in Oklahoma in 2005 in which raw milk from a cow infected with rabies led to “10,000 consumers potentially exposed.” Oh, by the way, we learn on slide #46, no one actually contracted rabies. But it sure was a scary situation (to the FDA).
I had just recently begun thinking that quite possibly the political tide was turning with regard to raw milk. The legislative initiatives in Ohio and Maryland, the settlement in Michigan, the seeming reasonableness of agriculture officials in Pennsylvania—all had me encouraged.
I keep thinking that raw milk is just too small a matter to be seriously occupying kingpins from the FDA and various state agencies. Boy, am I off base. These opponents of nutritional freedom obviously see raw milk as a litmus test. “If we lose on raw milk, next thing you know they’ll be after our eggs, meat, and Pepsi.” I’m not sure what their big fear is, but there are probably lots of scenarios I can't even imagine that scare these people and their corporate backers. Like the possibility that lots of people may realize health benefits from raw milk.
If farmers can begin making money selling raw milk, all kinds of possibilities open up. Maybe more individuals will want to buy small farms and try to make a living off the land.
***
Back in the 1970s, there was a television ad in which an auto mechanic, encouraging regular oil filter changes, said, “You can pay me now, or you can pay me later.” The “later,” of course, was a reference to the huge expense associated with tearing an auto engine apart and rebuilding it.
The comments about my Friday posting on personal experiences with factory agriculture reminded me of that ad. I think that philosophy helps answer the question Dave Milano and others raise about why we as a society accept the terrible health consequences associated with nutritionally dead food like V8.
The big concern of health care officials is making sure people don’t get immediately sick from contaminated food...on their watch. Our media obsess endlessly about why factory farms seem unable to eliminate the risk of food contamination.
But the long-term effects of dead food? Let the doctors and hospitals and pharmaceutical companies make money off that by treating all the chronic illnesses that result years down the road. No one will be the wiser as to how the illnesses started and progressed.
The approach is not dissimilar to the approach by manufacturers for many years in polluting our rivers and streams. As long as no one notices now, we’re okay. When people start getting sick years later, no one will be able to say for sure we were responsible.
Reader Comments (14)
This is an unbelievable scare tactic and further proof that scaring us is all government regulators are interested in. Virtually the only way to contract rabies is from a bite of an infected animal. Rabies requires blood-to-blood or blood-to-saliva transfer and cases that document otherwise are dubious at best. This is one of the most brazen scare tactics I have heard in some time. And do they have any proof that pasteurization kills the rabies virus anyway, or are they just guessing?
David wrote, “I had just recently begun thinking that quite possibly the political tide was turning with regard to raw milk. The legislative initiatives in Ohio and Maryland, the settlement in Michigan, the seeming reasonableness of agriculture officials in Pennsylvania—all had me encouraged.” David’s perceptions were undoubtedly correct, and undoubtedly shared by bureaucrats and others who make money and gain power by chasing away raw milk producers and consumers. Bureaucratic backlash was inevitable as they rationalized their positions and defended their turf.
In upcoming months it will be very important to stand firm for our rights in this thing, and not allow lies and hysteria to overwhelm the discussions. This forum, by drawing the attention of sane people, can help.
Now regarding this comment from Melissa:
“I guess its ok to test positive for bacteria as long as no one gets sick!!! SCARY THOUGHT!! “
Oh come on! Bold lies like the howler that Suzanne pointed to (from theFDA about rabies "exposure") aside, even the most aggressive bacteriophobe knows that there’s more to the infectious illness equation than the presence of bacteria. Everyone knows that pathogenic influences are not the same for every microbe, and more important, that individuals do not respond uniformly to microbial exposure. There is virtually complete agreement on that! (Listeriosis, not incidentally, is well understood to be an opportunistic pathogen, and since it is present in soil has undoubtedly emerged countless times to interact with humans without being identified.)
The question of why some get sick while others do not--I’m speaking of individual immune responses--is largely ignored by our medical providers and by our governmental health-policy regulators, in favor of after-the-fact interventionism. Where is the compassion in that approach?
The raw milk debate is about health. It’s about preventing suffering. There is more than enough evidence out there to convince any reasonable person that individual immune responses can be positively (and negatively!) affected by diet and lifestyle, and that raw foods, including raw milk, can be a positive factor. Likewise, there’s more than enough evidence that the collateral damage wrought by hyperdisinfection and post-morbidity intervention is very serious.
The notion that health can be achieved by constructing for mankind a regulation-induced, interventionist-maintained, pseudo-sterile bubble, is folly, and is indeed a very scary thought.
*there are no published studies that have demonstrated the presence of rabies virus in cows milk. In addition, no human or animal has ever been reported to develop rabies as a result of drinking milk from a rabid animal.*
And, *In theory, it is possible for someone to become infected with rabies by drinking raw milk from an infected animal. However, no human or animal has ever been reported to develop rabies in this manner. Rabies is transmitted by direct contact with infected material.*
The FDA and CDC are skilled at creating an epidemic of anxiety. One only needs to examine closely the FDA and CDC's own findings. The truth is there. Hold their feet to the fire!
As an artisan cheesemaker trying to market my cheese I often ask why? One of the biggest reasons I believe is the large milk producer co-ops or assocations that have clout with lawmakers to guard their own farm supply.
The state Ag Dept. offers no help. Many times refuses to return phone calls and in general hopes the small artisan dairy producer goes away. I agree that the raw milk issue with the states is being fueled by the FDA. More than likely to take the
public eye off real food related problems in the supply chain.
I’ve given so much thought to how and why Chris became ill last summer. Everyone who has been following this blog for the past few months knows Chris’ story. He became ill from “something” that was contaminated with “unidentified” bacteria that almost killed him. I’ve come to my own conclusion that the “something” was probably raw milk and the unidentified bacteria were most likely e-coli.
I’ve learned so much on this blog. I once again want to thank everyone for all of their thoughts on this subject. I’ve received an invaluable education. Here are some of the ideas I have about why Chris became ill.
Chris is adopted and therefore had to drink formula for the first year of his life. He missed out on all the good nutrition breast milk has to offer; especially omega 3’s and natural probiotics. Chris never had his system inundated with good bacteria. Even though he’s only had one round of antibiotics in his life, this was not good for his already depleted system.
Chris also inherited his birth father’s ADD without hyperactivity. Even though Chris has always had a healthy diet (organic foods, no processed sugar, etc…), he’s a picky eater (part of the ADD) and a carb freak (part of the ADD). It’s only been in the last few years that we are able to get him to eat some foods with high protein.
What happens when you give raw milk to a child for the first time in the summer months when e-coli contamination is at it’s peak (cows shed e-coli in the spring and summer months) whose intestinal track is deplete in healthy bacteria (good bacteria helps to fight off bad bacteria) and whose diet is high in carbohydrates (e-coli multiplies on grains)? This is the formula for one very sick child!
If I had only known this equation before I decided to give him raw milk to drink. I’m not blaming myself. I was just completely ignorant. Pro raw milk articles don’t mention how important it is to have a healthy immune system before drinking raw milk (just in case it is contaminated with bad bacteria). In fact, many people begin drinking raw milk because they are suffering from some health challenge.
I would like to see a campaign promoting the “to do’s “ before drinking raw milk. It is a fact that people can become ill from contaminated raw milk. The numbers are not large enough to warrant never drinking raw milk, but contamination is something that can happen. I think everyone is in agreement with this statement. People choosing to drink raw milk need to be informed of how important it is to have a healthy digestive track and immune system before consuming this food.
On a positive note, Chris has been taking probiotics since he’s been out of the hospital. It has had an interesting effect on him. His appetite is much better and he is more willing to try new foods. Both of these changes are huge for us! Chris actually tells us he’s hungry….it’s so strange, but wonderful.
I do believe the positives outweigh the negatives when it comes to raw milk. I wish I could have it as part of Chris’ diet, but I just can’t do it. I would like everyone’s thoughts on the two choices I have—soy milk or pasteurized goat’s milk. Which is the best of not perfect choices?
I continue to appreciate your thoughtful and nonreactionary approach to Chris' health. For that reason, please avoid the soy. Pasteurized goat's milk is infinitely better, and soy is dubious at best:
http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/darkside.html
Very interesting post. I plan to pass your ideas on to parents I know who want to start their children on raw milk. I am very pro-raw milk and know that it has great health benefits, but I think your cautions are wise.
I am glad to hear that Chris is doing better.
Jean
You are definitely on to something about the public-private system that controls dairy in this country. I came across this article when researching a raw milk article I was working on. It's not about raw milk but the dairy industry generally and what happens when one maverick farmer decides to step outside of its grips: